• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Underground Methane Bubbles

Manc Skipper said:
There's at least a couple of youtube things with a Scots geology professor stabbing
holes in a frozen lake, and setting fire to it! There's an American scientist too, but
the Glaswegian guy's accent irritates me! lol.

found it. Iain Stewart!

[You Tube]
Click to expand...

Methane is common stuff. As the product of anaerobic respiration it bubbles
up from the bottom of various bodies of water and your bottom too, anywhere
there's anaerobic respiration. Drive past the local land fill and there will most
likely be a flare of methane burning produced from the decomposition of trash
and garbage. And yes in the winter it collects under the ice.

But I really want to know how much a particular increase in methane will run-up
the temperature and how long it will take, because telling me that methane is
30 times or 84 times as powerful as CO2 really doesn't answer that question.
 
Steve Case said:
...
But I really want to know how much a particular increase in methane will run-up
the temperature and how long it will take, because telling me that methane is
30 times or 84 times as powerful as CO2 really doesn't answer that question.
Click to expand...
We've been through this.
Surely You remember, or has your Partisanship buried that thrashing already!
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...l-cost-carbon-absurdity-7.html#post1066724896
1/3/17
mbig to Steve Case said:
I already explained it to you:
mbig:
"If you'd like to debate all the sites YOU found, go right ahead, but again, they differ because of the time."

So here it is on A SILVER PLATTER.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

"....The United States primarily uses the 100-year GWP as a measure of the relative impact of different GHGs. However, the scientific community has developed a number of other metrics that could be used for comparing one GHG to another. These metrics may differ based on timeframe, the climate endpoint measured, or the method of calculation.

For example, the 20-year GWP is sometimes used as an alternative to the 100-year GWP. Just like the 100-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed by a gas over 100 years, the 20-year GWP is based on the energy absorbed over 20 years.

This 20-year GWP prioritizes gases with shorter lifetimes, because it does not consider impacts that happen more than 20 years after the emissions occur. Because all GWPs are calculated relative to CO2, GWPs based on a shorter timeframe will be larger for gases with lifetimes shorter than that of CO2, and smaller for gases with lifetimes longer than CO2.

For example, for CH4, which has a short lifetime, the 100-year GWP of 28–36 is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87.
For CF4, with a lifetime of 50,000 years, the 100-year GWP of 6630–7350 is larger than the 20-year GWP of 4880–4950."..."​



So THERE is your range and why the differ. I had already told you it was the time periods they used, and that was already apparent in the Sciam article to a Reasonably smart reader.
Previously posted Excerpt from my Sciam Link:

""But policymakers typically ignore methane's warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation's emissions inventory. Instead, they stretch out methane's warming impacts over a century, which makes the gas appear more benign than it is, experts said. The 100-year warming potential (GWP100) of methane is 34, according to the IPCC."..""​

Can you/Did you read? Nope.

How long did that take me to Google this last only slightly fuller explanation?
Under 1 minute.
How come you found the Range but couldn't (read 'WOULDN'T') find that time span is the reason for the difference?
Why, is because you have a political view/Blindness and don't want to know.
So you just threw up your partisan hands and said "BS".
THAT is why people have the views they do.
They root for their Hockey Team No matter what. They think science/politics is a Sporting event!
In this section it's particularly/Stupendously bad, with one poster basically SPAMMING up one or two sources/Blogs, as both OPs and 'answers' to everything.
Click to expand...

OUCHER!
bye again.
Last-word away...
 
Last edited:
grip said:
I think this is a finger pointing at fracking. Methane is like the worst of all greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

Methane at equal levels of release to CO2, will cause more forcing. However, CO2 is actually the stronger greenhouse gas.

IAW the IPCC AR4, CO2 increased by 36% and increased warming by 1.66 W/m^2. During the same time of 1750 to 2005 (2004?), CH4 more than doubles at around a 140% increase, but only produced a 0.48 W/m^2 increase.

Stop listening to the propaganda, and understand the reality of what the science says. Learn what RE and GWP actually represent if you wish to have a debate that instills respect. Otherwise, your ignorance shines very bright.
 
grip said:
Agreed, but there are far more methane hydrates in the ocean floor than the ice. And I still think the OP is aiming at something besides Climate Change.
Click to expand...
Release form earlier warming is one hypothesis as to why so many ships were list in the Bermuda Triangle.
 
grip said:
Because methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide and abundant.
Click to expand...

Please break it down for us, how that is calculated.

Otherwise... your indoctrination and ignorance is showing...
 
Steve Case said:
Just what does "...methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide..." exactly mean?
I'd like to know for a given increase in the amount of methane in the atmosphere, how much
that would that run-up the temperature and how long will it take? And it would be great if
you would show your work.
Click to expand...
1 ton of added CO2 calculates to no change in warming until you use eleven significant digits. 1 ton of added CH4 can be seen if you calculate ten significant digits.

That's how that works. At the slop of the equation. However, realistic changes don't follow this path. CO2 is actually more than five more potent of a greenhouse gas than CH4. It's all how you calculate the numbers, and the alarmists use a method to alarm.


GreenhouseGasConcentrations_zpsf49a7d0c.png


Please note the slopes where the levels are at. The slope of CO2 is 0.068 and the slope of CH4 is 0.4598, by the levels and formulas used to calculate forcing. This is how RE is calculated. The slope is from two points on the curve, 1 ppb apart. GWP uses an added ton instead of an added ppb. the slopes will be insignificant different, and since CO2 is 2.75 times heavier than CH4, it's like adding 2.75 pb vs. 1 ppb for CO2. This is where the GWP numbers around 75 to 80 come from.

Now... during the same time frame we added about 200 gigatons of CO2, we added less than 1 gigaton of CH4.

No matter how you slice it, CH4 is not as scary as portrayed.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
1 ton of added CO2 calculates to no change in warming until you use eleven significant digits. 1 ton of added CH4 can be seen if you calculate ten significant digits.

That's how that works. At the slop of the equation. However, realistic changes don't follow this path. CO2 is actually more than five more potent of a greenhouse gas than CH4. It's all how you calculate the numbers, and the alarmists use a method to alarm.
Click to expand...

So your way of understanding "realistic changes" is to invent a planet in which methane concentrations are over 200 times larger than on Earth, and talk about that :roll:

Back on Earth, we're interested in the impacts of what we're likely to emit - and 1 Gt of methane emitted has 30-80 times greater impact than 1 Gt of CO2. I understand that you don't like these facts, but inventing fictitious planets in order to accuse others of some kind of deception is quite breath-takingly ironic and hypocritical.
 
Steve Case said:
Oh I've read up on it, and the 30 times more powerful as your link says or the 84 times
more powerful as one of the other posts says is quite the common claim. The why is it
30 times or 84 times more powerful is not so easy to figure out on an internet search.
Click to expand...

Using GWP, it's how many years they go out since they dissipate at different rates.
 
calamity said:
No. That was shown to be wrong. I must have been thinking of Neptune or something.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much cooler Venus would be if it was almost 100% methane rather than almost 100% CO2?
 
My simple question

I'd like to know for a given increase in the amount of methane in
the atmosphere, how much that would that run-up the temperature
and how long will it take?
Click to expand...

Got a complicated answer:

Lord of Planar said:
1 ton of added CO2 calculates to no change in warming until you use
eleven significant digits. 1 ton of added CH4 can be seen if you
calculate ten significant digits. That's how that works. At the slop
of the equation. However, realistic changes don't follow this path.
CO2 is actually more than five more potent of a greenhouse gas than CH4.
It's all how you calculate the numbers, and the alarmists use a method
to alarm.



Please note the slopes where the levels are at. The slope of CO2
is 0.068 and the slope of CH4 is 0.4598, by the levels and formulas
used to calculate forcing. This is how RE is calculated. The slope
is from two points on the curve, 1 ppb apart. GWP uses an added ton
instead of an added ppb. the slopes will be insignificant different,
and since CO2 is 2.75 times heavier than CH4, it's like adding
2.75 pb vs. 1 ppb for CO2. This is where the GWP numbers around 75 to
80 come from. Now... during the same time frame we added about
200 gigatons of CO2, we added less than 1 gigaton of CH4.
No matter how you slice it, CH4 is not as scary as portrayed.
Click to expand...

That's right, CH4 is not as scary as portrayed. But watts per
square meter doesn't mean anything to most people including me.
I'm not picking on you, I always run into the watts per square
meter lingo when I start looking for this answer. But it's an
answer that will mean something. After all Climate Change is all
about temperature. Just look at all the arguments over hottest
year ever etc. Temperature is what people want to know.

So your answer didn't tell me what the temperature would be for a
given increase in methane. Didn't say how long it would take either.
But you did show your work (-:

I should have asked, if you double methane how much and how long?

The how long part is easy. This web page
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/#global_growth
tells us that CH4 is in the air at about 1850 ppb and is
increasing at an average rate of about 6 ppb which works
out to around 300 years to double its concentration.

The temperature part should be easy because just like CO2
the climate sensitivity for CH4 should be well known. But
it's not. I'm talking the absolute value without feed backs.
For CO2 it's 1.2 K per doubling. I'm pretty sure the value
for doubling methane is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K.
I've gotten to those answers by asking and some crude
arithmetic. The crude arithmetic got me to 0.18 K.

Here's the crude arithmetic:

Methane's concentration is about 2 ppm and an equal mass
of CO2 is about 0.7 ppm. Adding 2 ppm to the concentration
of methane is a 100% increase, and adding 0.7 ppm to CO2
is a 0.2% increase.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a 0.2% increase
in CO2 won't run the temperature up very much and 84 times
that isn't very much either.

0.7 ppm/400 ppm x 1.2 K x 84 = 0.18 K

So in general terms, how much will a given rise in methane
run up the temperature? The answer is not much and it will
take a long time.

If you read all this, thanks.
 
It really doesn't matter how hot Venus is, or how hot it would be if there were more methane in the atmosphere. No one lives there, not even Spock.

What does matter is that the feedback loop predicted by the AGW theory, the one in which thawing tundra releases methane, which warms the Earth, which leads to more thawing of the tundra, is happening.

So, therefore, it is imperative that we claim that methane really isn't a greenhouse gas, since global climate change is just a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Lord Trump himself has proclaimed this, so we know it to be true.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It really doesn't matter how hot Venus is, or how hot it would be if there were more methane in the atmosphere. No one lives there, not even Spock.

What does matter is that the feedback loop predicted by the AGW theory, the one in which thawing tundra releases methane, which warms the Earth, which leads to more thawing of the tundra, is happening.

So, therefore, it is imperative that we claim that methane really isn't a greenhouse gas, since global climate change is just a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. Lord Trump himself has proclaimed this, so we know it to be true.
Click to expand...
The transition from glaciers, to tundra, to boreal forest, has been going on since the end of the last ice age.
Is there any indication that the rate of that change has accelerated?
The process has repeated itself behind the retreat of the glaciers, which are now over 2000 miles from their peak.
 
longview said:
1 The transition from glaciers, to tundra, to boreal forest, has been going on since the end of the last ice age.
2 Is there any indication that the rate of that change has accelerated?
3 The process has repeated itself behind the retreat of the glaciers, which are now over 2000 miles from their peak.
Click to expand...

1 Correct
2 Yes.
3 The coming and going of ice ages is nothing new.

In fact, anthropologists tell us that the human race was down to about a thousand breeding pairs some 70 thousand years ago, due most likely to climate change.

Unlike today, there weren't enough humans to accelerate climate change back then, but it still had an impact on the Earth.

But, of course, that's just a bunch of science stuff. Those of us in the know understand that Genesis is the real story, the Earth really is only a few thousand years old, and climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
 
Dittohead not! said:
1 Correct
2 Yes.
3 The coming and going of ice ages is nothing new.

In fact, anthropologists tell us that the human race was down to about a thousand breeding pairs some 70 thousand years ago, due most likely to climate change.

Unlike today, there weren't enough humans to accelerate climate change back then, but it still had an impact on the Earth.

But, of course, that's just a bunch of science stuff. Those of us in the know understand that Genesis is the real story, the Earth really is only a few thousand years old, and climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
Click to expand...
Since you answered Yes to 2, what are the indications that the rate of this change has accelerated?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Temperature records:

1500px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png
Click to expand...
You do understand that the old proxy temperatures have resolutions that average over a century,
as compared to the instrument readings which are recorded at least twice daily.
From Marcott, et al 2013,
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf
The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety
of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years,
with a median resolution of 120 years (5).
Click to expand...
This means that the recent temperature increase might not even show up in the graph you presented.
Also the 2050 and 2100 dots on the graph are the highly speculative maximum ECS predictions,
which are unlikely to occur.
 
Lord of Planar said:

And the methane now being released was trapped 10's of 1000's of years ago in "permafrost" that is now melting due to AGW creating even more warming as predicted by models.
​

That is very unlikely true.

It was likely trapped during the Maunder Minima, as for the longest time back.
Click to expand...

LOL You think all those gigatons of methane formed in 70 years? Wow, I guess you think it was "divine intervention" then.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
 
longview said:
You do understand that the old proxy temperatures have resolutions that average over a century,
as compared to the instrument readings which are recorded at least twice daily.
From Marcott, et al 2013,
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics 7004/Marcott_Global Temperature Reconstructed.pdf

This means that the recent temperature increase might not even show up in the graph you presented.
Also the 2050 and 2100 dots on the graph are the highly speculative maximum ECS predictions,
which are unlikely to occur.
Click to expand...

The recent temperature increases have already shown up in the form of 15 of the hottest years on record having occurred in the 21st. century.

What is your theory on why the permafrost is melting and releasing its methane?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The recent temperature increases have already shown up in the form of 15 of the hottest years on record having occurred in the 21st. century.

What is your theory on why the permafrost is melting and releasing its methane?
Click to expand...
No theory, the glaciers have been in retreat for 12,000 years.
The same process has been ongoing, for much of that 12,000 years.
The question is weather the process has accelerated, and we do not have sufficient data on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom